Umatilla delays vote on parks-code changes after heated public hearing over alcohol rules and emergency clause

City councilors in Umatilla opened a public hearing on an ordinance to amend Title 7, Chapter 6 of the Umatilla Municipal Code — including explicit allowances for alcohol sales and consumption at Big River Golf Course, alcohol service at the Umatilla Marina during community events, use of golf carts on the course, and limited tobacco exceptions — but postponed final action and directed staff to re-notice the measure for a later meeting.

The proposed ordinance would bring the municipal code into alignment with the facility’s historic operations, staff said, but opponents said the council was rushing and should instead follow broader public-notice and planning steps.

David, city manager, told the council staff found that the parks code did not match “historical and operational use” at the golf course and marina and that the proposal was intended to “bring the city into compliance with its historic use and operations.” He said the changes would also allow the city to properly issue OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission) licenses and to formalize how alcohol sales are administered at leased and city-owned areas of the facilities.

Maureen McGee, the city’s contract city attorney, explained how emergency clauses work in local legislation and said the language included in the draft ordinance is standard wording allowed under the city charter to make an ordinance effective sooner than the typical 30-day default. “This is the standard language for emergency clauses that is commonly used in the passage of legislation in both state and local legislation,” she said.

Many residents opposed accelerating the ordinance. Tess Whitesnider, a local resident, said the council had given neighbors too little notice of changes that affect nearby property and quality of life, citing noise, traffic and overnight camping concerns around the course. “Please be accountable in your decisions tonight,” she said. Andrew Morris, another resident who addressed the council, called the change a drafting error and urged more careful review and public input before adopting new rules.

Council members debated whether the ordinance should include an emergency clause to make it effective immediately (or sooner than 30 days). Supporters of the emergency clause said it would reduce the city’s exposure to liability while the code and real-world practice were out of alignment. Opponents said using an emergency clause for what they characterized as a clerical or staff oversight risked legal challenge and eroded trust.

After public testimony and council deliberations, the council did not adopt the ordinance that night. Instead councilors directed staff to re-notice the ordinance under the regular notice timeline and bring the item back for further consideration at a subsequent meeting (staff were directed to post public notice and follow charter/code posting requirements). Staff noted that the city’s newspaper-of-record is a weekly and that publication cutoffs affect timing; as a result the city will also post notices at the legally required public places if the newspaper schedule does not permit full seven-day advance publishing.

The staff presentation and much of the public testimony focused on three recurring points: (1) whether the golf course and marina are properly designated and managed as park assets under the community-service zoning layer, (2) whether allowing alcohol sales and consumption on city-owned facilities requires additional land-use or rezoning steps, and (3) whether the emergency clause was appropriate for this ordinance. Staff said the golf course was already designated in the city’s community-service zoning and that the proposed changes were intended to clarify and legalize longstanding operational practices rather than to expand new uses beyond existing zoning.

The council also directed staff to undertake a broader review of parks code language over the summer so the city can develop consistent, facility-specific rules (hours, temporary closures, fee and operating procedures) and consider establishing a formal process for adopting park rules and fee schedules. Staff noted that parks can include “pay-to-play” facilities (for example boat ramps or an aquatic center) and that designating the golf course as park space can make the facility eligible for state and federal conservation or parks grants.

The council’s next steps: staff will re-notice the amended ordinance for a future meeting under the standard notice procedures, and the council will resume deliberations after the public-notice period and further staff work.

For residents concerned about enforcement, staff said the ordinance proposal did not create new criminal penalties beyond existing code; it was intended to align code language with current operational practices and to clarify who may sell or serve alcohol and under what rules.

The discussion both highlighted strong neighborhood concerns — including noise, traffic and perceived lapses in process — and the practical operational needs the city cited for regularizing alcohol service and golf-cart rules at city-managed recreational properties.

Looking ahead, staff said they will return with revised code language and a plan for broader parks-code review. The council did not adopt ordinance 875 that night and left the emergency-clause question unresolved for the follow-up hearing.